Siman 93

It is stated in the Gemara (Chullin 97a): A pot in which one cooked meat, one shall not cook milk in it, and if one cooked, it is subject to the rule of providing flavor. And such is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 9 and the Shulchan Aruch. And the explanation of the matter is that we ask a specialist if there is the flavor of meat in it or not. And even according to the one who holds in siman 98 that with less than sixty we do not rely on a specialist, that is when the substance of the forbidden item was mixed in; but when there is nothing there but its flavor, as is the case here, it is permitted even with less than sixty when there is no flavor, as is written there. And our teacher, the Rema, who wrote here that one must measure against the entire pot, the depth of his intention in this is that even though such is the intention according to the essence of the law, nevertheless, according to what will be explained there that we do not rely at all on tasting, if so, one must necessarily measure with sixty. And this is why he says that one must measure against the entire pot, because we do not know how much it absorbed. And since in most instances there is not in what is in the pot sixty against the pot, therefore it is completely forbidden, unless we know how much the pot absorbed, such as if they only cooked in it within that twenty-four hour period a kezayit of meat, for then one only needs to measure against the kezayit that it absorbed within the twenty-four hour period, as what it absorbed before the twenty-four hour period is a flavor that degrades, or such as if the pot is wide and its copper is thin in a manner that there is in what is inside it sixty against the pot. And there is no difference between a pot of metal or of earthenware; one must always measure against the entire pot.

But if one cooked milk in it after twenty-four hours, it is a case of imparting a flavor for the worse and the cooked food is permitted. However, the pot is forbidden for cooking either meat or milk, because it has absorbed from both of them. And if one cooked meat within twenty-four hours of the cooking of the milk, the cooked food is forbidden. But if one cooked milk, it is permitted ex post facto, though ab initio it is forbidden to cook even in a case of imparting a flavor for the worse, for they decreed regarding a vessel that is not of its day on account of a vessel that is of its day (Avodah Zarah 76a), and it will be explained in siman 122 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 122). And know that there is an opinion that when one night has passed it is not called "of its day" and it is a case of imparting a flavor for the worse, as will be explained there; however, we hold as the halacha that it requires twenty-four hours, and we do not rely on this opinion except in a case of great difficulty as I have written. Therefore, the Tur as well, even though there he brought these two opinions, nevertheless here he wrote simply, and this is his wording: A pot in which one cooked meat, he shall not cook milk in it; and if he cooked in it within twenty-four hours, it is forbidden; but if he waited twenty-four hours, etc. Thus far his words. And his main intention is that here it specifically requires twenty-four hours and not the passing of a night. [See the Beit Yosef and the Bach who exerted themselves as to why he did not mention that we rely on tasting, and in my humble opinion it seems simple that here he only intended to require specifically twenty-four hours, and therefore he wrote the language of "forbidden" and "permitted," and the law of a gentile cook is automatically what he wrote in siman 98, and examine this]:

And know that there are matters in this regard in the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, that are not understood. For here in the Gemara (Chullin 97a) we have learned two things: a pot in which one cooked terumah, one may not cook chulin in it, and if one cooked, it is based on the imparting of flavor; a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it, and if one cooked, it is based on the imparting of flavor. And it is a simple matter in the mouths of all the poskim that if one cooked in it within twenty-four hours without hagalah, the cooked food is forbidden when there is not enough for nullification, as I have written. And it is also a simple matter in the mouths of the poskim that for a clay vessel, hagalah is not effective. And the Rambam wrote at the end of the Laws of Terumot: A pot in which one cooked terumah, one may not cook chulin in it, and if one cooked, it is based on the imparting of flavor. And if he rinsed the pot with water or with wine, it is permitted to cook in it. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad challenged him: what is the relevance of rinsing with cold liquid here? For here one requires hagalah; see there. And the sages of Lunel asked him about this, and he responded: since we learned in the Mishnah at the end of Terumot: One who pours from a jug to a jug, he drips three drops and places chulin into it; if he tilted it and drained it, this is terumah. And the matter is an a fortiori argument: if the oil remaining at the bottom of the jug does not render it meduma, how much more so for a pot where terumah was absorbed in its clay, should it enter one's mind, etc., and I only required washing because it was by means of fire, to be stringent. Thus far his words. And his words are astonishing, for what is the connection between this and that? For since it was cooked in the pot, it has absorbed much, and there is not enough in the cooked food to nullify it, like all prohibitions.

Furthermore, his words in chapter 8 of the Laws of the Act of the Offerings are perplexing, regarding that which the Torah required in the cooking of consecrated foods—that a copper vessel requires scouring and rinsing so that it shall be permitted to cook in it further, because from the previous cooking it becomes notar, and a clay vessel requires breaking. And he wrote there in law 14 that only regarding a sin-offering is the law so, but regarding other consecrated foods, even a clay vessel is permitted with scouring and rinsing, see there. And the Ra'avad wondered about him, for how can hag'alah avail for a clay vessel, since it never leaves its walls? And more perplexing than this is that in law 15 he wrote that vessels of dung, vessels of earth, and vessels of stone do not require scouring and rinsing even regarding a sin-offering, but rather only rinsing, see there. And how can rinsing avail for a vessel in which consecrated foods were cooked and after a time became notar, and through what would the prohibition depart? For he wrote at the beginning of chapter 17 of the Laws of Forbidden Foods that a clay vessel in which one cooked the meat of a carcass or creeping and swarming things is forbidden for cooking in forever, for even though the Torah only prohibited a pot used within the day, nevertheless, by rabbinic enactment it is forbidden, and for clay, hag'alah does not avail.

And it appears to me that the Rambam holds that when the Sages forbade a pot that is not ben yomo, this is when they cooked a forbidden item in it, such as nevelah, and creeping things, and the like; however, when they cooked a permitted item in it, such as terumah and kodashim, or meat or milk, which at the time was permitted, and only afterward will it become forbidden when one cooks chullin, or other kodashim when the time passes and it becomes notar, or from meat to milk, or from milk to meat, we establish it upon the Torah law that when it is not ben yomo, it is permitted to cook in it. And the Maggid Mishneh already mentioned this reasoning in chapter 9 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 11, regarding this law that a pot in which one cooked meat, he shall not cook milk in it, and this is his wording: And it will be explained in chapter 17 that even if one cooked nevelah meat in it and on the second day cooked slaughtered meat etc., and behold the law of vessels that have absorbed meat regarding milk is like the law of vessels that have absorbed a forbidden substance regarding the cooking of a permitted substance. And there are those who explain that they would be lenient regarding meat and milk, because each one is permitted on its own, because when it absorbed, it absorbed a permitted substance, and the first [opinion] is primary and according to the opinion of our teacher. Thus far his words. And I wonder where he saw that the Rambam holds according to the first opinion; on the contrary, I say that he holds like the "there are those who explain," and everything settles well as will be explained with the help of Heaven:

For behold, at the end of Avodah Zarah (76b) it is stated: Rav Amram raised a contradiction to Rav Sheshet: We learned in a Mishnah, "Spits and grills, one purifies them with fire," yet we learned regarding kodashim (Zevachim 97a), "The spit and the grill, one purges them with hot water." He said to him: Amram my son, what is the relevance of kodashim to the purgings of Avodah Zarah? Here it absorbed permitted matter; there it absorbed forbidden matter. [It absorbed permitted matter, therefore purging is sufficient; Rashi]. Rabbah said: Ultimately, when it emits, it emits forbidden matter [notar, which is subject to karet]. Rather, Rabbah said: What is "purging" here? It is also rinsing and scouring [meaning, to emit the forbidden matter it requires purification by fire, but in kodashim it is a decree of the King to perform scouring and rinsing]. Abaye said to him: Are they comparable? Scouring and rinsing are in cold water; purging is in hot water, etc. Rather, Rava said: This is the reason for kodashim, etc., every day serves as a purging for the previous day [for every day one cooks in them, and it does not have enough time to become notar before he returns and emits it, etc.]. If so, even purging should not be required? It remains a difficulty, etc. Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said originally: here it absorbed permitted matter, here it absorbed forbidden matter. And as for your difficulty that at the time it emits, it emits forbidden matter—at the time it emits, the forbidden matter is not present in its essence [for when it became notar, there was no forbidden matter in essence, as it was absorbed within the walls of the vessel, and its forbidden status was never recognized and its prohibition is not stringent].

And now there are great questions to ask regarding this: how could Abaye say that scouring and rinsing are in cold water, when this is a dispute in Zevachim (Zevachim 97a), where Rabbi holds scouring and rinsing are in cold water, and the sages say scouring is in hot water and rinsing is in cold water, and we rule like the sages as the Rambam wrote there (Rambam, Laws of the Act of the Sacrifices 8:12)? And if so, what is the objection? And it is explained there that according to the sages, scouring is hag'alah; see there. Furthermore, just as he objected to the resolution that "each day serves as a hag'alah for the next" by saying "if so, hag'alah should also not be required," why did he not object similarly to the resolution of Rav Ashi? And it appears to me that we have a general rule from the Geonim that whenever the author of the Shas says "it is a difficulty" (kashya) and not "it is a refutation" (tiyuvta), it is not a complete objection. Therefore, when he objects "hag'alah should also not be required, it is a difficulty," one can answer simply that this is all according to Rabbi, but according to the sages there must be hag'alah, which is scouring and rinsing, for this is the decree of the Torah regarding kodashim. And previously, when he objected "is it comparable? Scouring and rinsing are in cold water, hag'alah is in hot water," he wanted to establish this Mishnah even according to Rabbi, because Rabbi redacted the Mishnayot; but according to the halakhah like the sages, we say that this is scouring and rinsing. Furthermore, even according to Rabbi it is not such a difficulty, for while it is true that each day serves as a hag'alah for the next, nevertheless, according to the fundamental law it requires libun as we learned regarding the hag'alah of gentiles (Avodah Zarah 75b). However, because it absorbed permitted matter, we are lenient with hag'alah; yet hag'alah is required and we do not rely on the hag'alah of each day, for perhaps they did not cook as much on this day as on the previous day and it is not a proper hag'alah. Therefore, he did not object to Rav Ashi "if so, hag'alah should also not be required," for while it is true that regarding the presence of the prohibition, the prohibition itself is not there, nevertheless the prohibition is absorbed in the walls, for when they cook, it is certain that the prohibition in the walls will be emitted. But this is the benefit: that we do not require a complete purification as with the absorption of prohibited matter. Therefore, since with the absorption of prohibited matter one requires libun, hag'alah is sufficient here, and perhaps a lesser purification than this would have sufficed, but this is the decree of the Torah according to the sages, as I have written.

And in any event, we have learned explicitly from this sugya that in any case where it absorbed a permitted substance, it is much more lenient than where it absorbed a forbidden substance. According to this, it is a simple matter that an earthenware vessel that absorbed a permitted substance, hagalah is sufficient, for it certainly expels a great deal. And although with an earthenware vessel it is impossible to extract all that is absorbed because it does not entirely leave its walls, nevertheless, regarding what was absorbed while permitted, this is sufficient. This is similar to a matter that requires libun, yet when it absorbed a permitted substance, hagalah is sufficient; and here too it is so. And so too after twenty-four hours, which is permitted by Torah law, and the rabbis decreed regarding this—we only find this regarding the hagalah of gentiles where it absorbed a forbidden substance, but where it absorbed a permitted substance, the rabbis did not decree, for its prohibition is not as stringent. This is the opinion of the "some explain" brought by the Maggid Mishneh, and this is also the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

And that which he wrote that for terumah only rinsing is required, and also that which he wrote regarding kodashim for vessels made of dung etc., that rinsing is sufficient, his intention is to use it after twenty-four hours, and he did not need to specify this as it is a simple matter. And that which he required scouring and rinsing for metal vessels and breaking for earthenware vessels in the case of a chatat, this is not due to the preparation of hagalah, but rather because this is the decree of the Torah regarding kodashim. Therefore, for other kodashim, breaking is not required for earthenware vessels, as the Torah only decreed this for a chatat; however, scouring and rinsing are required for all kodashim, as is explained in Zevachim there (Zevachim 95b). And this is what the Rambam explained to the sages of Lunel: that if the sages were not concerned with the existing droplets, even though they are nullified in sixty, nevertheless one may not nullify a prohibited substance ab initio; rather, because it is permitted, the sages were not concerned with this. All the more so for that which is not of its day, which according to the Torah is permitted for all prohibitions, that the sages were not concerned in a case where it absorbed permitted matter, according to the opinion of those who explain. [And one should not raise a difficulty from siman 97, for regarding the food itself they were more stringent; and examine this carefully]:

The Rambam is not alone in this, for it appears that the Ittur and the Rashba, of blessed memory, also followed this path. For behold, the Tur in this siman wrote, and this is his wording: The author of the Ittur wrote that if one cooked milk in a meat pot, and it was used within the day, and it contains sixty, etc., that he may cook in it whatever type he wishes. And I wonder how it is permitted to cook milk in it; is it better than hagalah? For even hagalah does not avail for an earthenware vessel, etc. Thus far his words. And it is clear that the Ittur holds that since it absorbed permitted matter, it is permitted to cook in it after twenty-four hours because it is a flavor that imparts a foul taste, for with absorbed permitted matter the sages did not decree to forbid the pot after twenty-four hours as they decreed with forbidden matter. [See the Bach who also wrote that the Ittur is dealing with after twenty-four hours, and he distinguishes between meat and milk and other prohibitions, see there; and according to this, there is no wonder in what we wrote that the Rambam is also dealing with after twenty-four hours, for the master, the Bach, says so regarding the intent of the Ittur]:

And also in the name of the Rashba he wrote that if one cooked vegetables in a meat pot, it is permitted to cook cheese in it afterward, for the strength of the absorbed meat has already been diminished and weakened until it is no longer fit for the name of the prohibition of meat and milk to take effect upon it. To what do these words apply? When it absorbed a permitted substance, as we have said, but if it absorbed a prohibited substance, it remains forever in its prohibition until he performs hagalah on that which is fit for hagalah, etc. Thus far his words. And in his book Torat HaBayit at the end of Bayit 4, he explained that he learned this from that principle that "every day acts as hagalah for the next" which we brought, and the commentators of the Tur explained that the Rashba is dealing with rinseable vessels, not with earthenware vessels, and therefore the Tur did not contest him, but from his wording it does not imply so, and in any case, they also distinguish between where it absorbed a permitted substance and where it absorbed a prohibited substance, for just as there is a distinction in the matter of nosei ta'am bar nosei ta'am between meat and milk and other prohibitions, so too in this:

However, most of the poskim do not hold this way, as the Tur wrote in the name of the Rav, our teacher Peretz, that even if it is not a ben yomo, and one cooked milk in it, it is forbidden thereafter to cook in it initially neither meat nor milk, because it contains absorbed meat and milk, unless it is of metal, in which case he shall perform hag'alah, etc., and if it is of earthenware, it has no remedy except breaking. Thus far his words. And also the opinions of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, are so, that one should not distinguish between an absorption of permitted matter and an absorption of forbidden matter. And it must be said that they hold that the Gemara does not say this except regarding kodashim, for there is no shevut in the Mikdash, and also our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote so, that in the Mikdash the rabbis did not decree, and they established it upon the Torah law (Chullin 112a). [And see the Ran, who gave another reason]:

But regarding that which he required the breaking of an earthenware vessel, the matter is puzzling; for why should it be forbidden to use it for other things that are neither meat nor milk? And indeed, in the Shulchan Aruch they ruled accordingly, that other things are permitted, see there. However, also in the Shulchan Aruch in siman 94, it is explained that a vessel that is not ben yomo is forbidden for any use. And it must be said that this is merely a stringency, and here he informs us of the law [Shach, subsection 3], and also the Tur was stringent merely as a stringency and not by the law. And there is one who holds that an earthenware vessel is forbidden by the law for any hot use even if it is not of meat or of milk, because it is always exuding, and it will exude meat with milk; and even with cold, an earthenware vessel exudes, and therefore by the law it is forbidden for any liquid use [Pri Chadash, siman 91, subsection 3]. And it appears that this is the opinion of the Tur, and so we instruct in practice that it is forbidden to use it for any use, and it is good to break it, and so it is implied in the Gemara [Chullin 111b, regarding the bowl of Rabbi Ami that he broke it]:

The Levush wrote: A milk pot in which one cooked once, twice, and three times, and afterwards cold milk stood in it even a full day of twenty-four hours, which is the measure of kavishah and more, and afterwards one cooked meat in it within twenty-four hours of the kavishah, the meat is permitted. For since the absorbed matter that entered the vessel through cooking is not ben yomo and imparts a flavor that impairs, and the absorbed matter of the kavishah does not forbid, because since one already cooked in it two or three times prior to the kavishah, the vessel is already satiated from absorbing and does not absorb through kavishah. Thus far his words. And his source is from the Mordechai [chapter Ein Maamidin] in the name of Ri HaLavan, and there it is written that milk was in it the whole night, see there [cited in the Beit Yosef]. And the Levush held that the intention is twenty-four hours, for if not so, this is no novelty, as there is no kavishah in less than twenty-four hours. But it is not so, for if it stood twenty-four hours it is certainly forbidden; for granted that it is satiated from absorbing, nevertheless it perforce absorbs and expels what is inside, for if not so, why is it forbidden in cooking? How can it absorb, behold it has no room? Rather, it absorbs and expels what is inside, and if so, it is also thus in kavishah [Taz, subsection 2]. And the Mordechai specifically said "night," for I would have said since a clay vessel is easy to absorb, it absorbs even in one night; it comes to teach us that since it is satiated from absorbing, it does not absorb in one night until it becomes kavishah and absorbs and expels. And such a reasoning is brought in the Tur later in siman 135 regarding the matter of yayin nesech, see there. And on the contrary, regarding a new clay vessel it is more stringent than other vessels, as it could be said that they absorb even in less than twenty-four hours because they are soft to absorb and have no absorption in them yet. However, in truth one should not learn from the law of yayin nesech, and regarding the matter of issur v'heter their law is like all vessels, and so the great Acharonim agreed, and so is the primary ruling for halachah [Nekudot HaKesef, and Pri Megadim, and Kreti U'Pleti].

We calculate the twenty-four hour period from the time it was removed from the fire and cooled slightly, and not from the time it remained in the vessel. For example, if a jug of milk was removed from the fire on Sunday morning and remained in the jug until evening, we calculate the twenty-four hour period from Sunday morning until Monday morning, and afterward, if they cooked meat in it, it is a giver of a flavor that impairs. We do not calculate the twenty-four hour period from the evening, and so too in any similar case, and it is simple. However, as long as it is hot enough that the hand recoils from it, it is like one that stands near the fire.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: The law of a pot cover is like the law of the pot itself. And there are those who are stringent regarding a cover, saying that even if it is not ben yomo, its law is as if it were ben yomo, and so they practice in some places, and so I practice because of the custom, and it is a stringency without a reason; nevertheless, in a case where there is any side to permit regardless, or if it is for the needs of Shabbat, or a loss, one should permit if the cover is not ben yomo, just as with the pot itself. Thus far his words. And there are those who gave a reason for the covers, because they are very narrow at the top and the space there is tight and it is impossible to wipe them, and the sweat and the food always remain there substantially and do not become defective, but our covers which are wide, there is no place for this stringency, and so one should rule [see Shach subsection 4, and Taz subsection 2]. And even with a narrow cover, if there is sixty against the narrow place, it is kosher [Taz].

He further wrote that if one took a boiling lid from a meat pot and placed it upon a milk pot, if both are hot, both are forbidden if there is food in the meat pot and the milk pot. And if the lid is cold and the pot is hot, both are also forbidden if it began to sweat under the lid, for the bottom prevails. And if the lid is hot and the pot is cold, everything is permitted, only the food requires peeling if it is possible to peel it, and if not, everything is permitted. And if there was no food in the pot, everything is permitted, for it is like two pots that touched one another. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matter is that when they are boiling to the point that the hand recoils from them, and in both of them there was cooked food, automatically the steam of the pot rises to the cover and descends from the cover to the pot, and both of them are forbidden along with the food in the pot if there is not sixty against the cover. And even if the cover is cold, since the pot is hot and the cover remained for a long time in a manner that it began to steam and the hand recoils from the steam, everything is also forbidden, for the lower one prevails and it is like both of them are hot. And conversely, when the cover is hot and the pot is cold, if there is no food in the pot everything is permitted, for it is like two pots touching one another, and if there is food in the pot, the food requires peeling according to the law of hot into cold, and if peeling is impossible it is permitted as I wrote in siman 91 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 91), but the cover and the pot are permitted. And know that in siman 92, section 53, we wrote that in such a case the pot and the cover are forbidden, for it is impossible that the pot did not absorb from the boiling cover, like a boiling drop that fell onto a pot, see there. And this opinion holds that it is not comparable to pouring which forbids to the depth of a peeling, and the great later authorities decided for prohibition [Shach, subsection 6, and Pri Chadash, subsection 9], and it requires further study. And if the cover was dry, in any case it is permitted. And so too a milk cover that is not a ben yomo which covered a meat pot that is a ben yomo and they cooked vegetables in it, everything is permitted.